[Full judgment: Seales_v_AttorneyGeneral.pdf]

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THIS JUDGMENT UNTIL 3.00PM ON 5 JUNE 2015.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CIV-2015-485-000235

[2015] NZHC 1239

UNDER The Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
BETWEEN LECRETIA SEALES

Plaintiff
AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

[…]

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Summary of judgment

[1] Ms Seales is dying from a brain tumour. She is 42 years old and may have only a short time to live.

[2] Ms Seales wants to have the option of determining when she dies. To do this, Ms Seales would like her doctor to be able to either administer a fatal drug to Ms Seales, or provide Ms Seales with a fatal drug to enable Ms Seales to end her life by herself.

[3] Ms Seales’ doctor is willing to take either of these steps, but will not do so unless she can be assured she would be acting lawfully if she acceded to either of Ms Seales’ requests.

[4] Ms Seales has sought two declarations concerning the meaning of two provisions of the Crimes Act 1961 (the Crimes Act) to determine whether or not Ms Seales’ doctor can lawfully accede to either of Ms Seales’ requests.

[…]

[9] I cannot declare that Ms Seales’ doctor would be acting lawfully if she administered a fatal drug to Ms Seales within the terms sought. Nor can I declare that it would be lawful for Ms Seales’ doctor to provide her with a fatal drug knowing that Ms Seales intended to use that drug to end her own life and did so. Because Ms Seales’ health is rapidly deteriorating, I informed the parties of this aspect of my decision on 2 June 2015.

[10] In the alternative, Ms Seales asks that I issue declarations that the offence provisions of the Crimes Act are not consistent with two rights guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the NZBORA). The rights in question are the “right not to be deprived of life” and the right not to be “subjected … to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment”. I refer to the declarations relating to the application of ss 8 and 9 of the NZBORA as “the Bill of Rights declarations”.

[…]

[12] I have decided that Ms Seales’ right not to be deprived of life is engaged, but not breached in her case. I have also concluded that Ms Seales’ right not to be subjected to cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment is not engaged by her tragic circumstances. I have therefore concluded the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act are consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in the NZBORA.

[13] The criminal law declarations sought by Ms Seales invite me to change the effect of the offence provisions of the Crimes Act. The changes to the law sought by Ms Seales can only be made by Parliament. I would be trespassing on the role of Parliament and departing from the constitutional role of Judges in New Zealand if I were to issue the criminal law declarations sought by Ms Seales.

[14] This judgment has been delivered urgently so Ms Seales can be made aware of my decision while that is still possible.

[…]

Conclusion

[210] I am unable to issue any of the declarations sought by Ms Seales. In reaching this conclusion I have focused on the substantive issues rather than having resorted to the jurisdictional grounds referred to by counsel for the Attorney-General. I have taken this course because of the significance of the issues to New Zealand society raised by Ms Seales’ case.

[211] Although Ms Seales has not obtained the outcomes she sought, she has selflessly provided a forum to clarify important aspects of New Zealand law. The complex legal, philosophical, moral and clinical issues raised by Ms Seales’ proceedings can only be addressed by Parliament passing legislation to amend the effect of the Crimes Act. I appreciate Parliament has shown little desire to engage in

[Full judgment: Seales_v_AttorneyGeneral.pdf]

© Scoop Media